India notebook: Transfixed by the match-fixing saga

It was cricket off the field last week but it still dominated the national scene as no other game has ever done before. The CBI report on the match-fixing so absorbed the entire country, politicians included that a major event like elections to the Indian Olympic Association.
On the face of it the results tended to oversimplify the tremendous act of balancing which was necessary before unanimity was achieved. Thus while Suresh Kalmadi retained his post at the top of the apex body as its President he had to accommodate any number of personalities, some of them politicians and some of them bureaucrats, to be able to project a picture of a unified house. The break-up of the office-bearers makes interesting reading and is a testimony to the compromises necessary.
The newly anointed IOA is the only one of its type which, while going in for a specific shape, has had to create unheard of posts like associated vice-presidents and associate joint secretaries. And the numbers are not small. There are 12 associate vice-presidents and two associate joint secretaries in addition to the usual number of 12 full-fledged vice-presidents and six joint secretaries to add to the nine chairmen of IOA Commissions. In fact everyone one who contested and who is some one or the other in either the government of some federation or the other, has been included in the jumbo-sized executive which can be likened to some of the weird concoctions bearing the name of state cabinets in the country.
Responsibilities have been apportioned but it is not quite clear as to how many of them will be working executives. And more importantly how many of them have any commitment to Indian sport. So absorbed was the IOA in its election exercise that it completely overlooked what should been the foremost topic, the Indian performance at the Sydney Olympic Games.
When reminded of the issue Kalmadi was almost dismissive of the topic, stating that it was not listed on the agenda but it did come up. And he disappointed many of admirers and supporters when he dished out answers which appeared to be bordering on flippancy. For one he said that it was for the first time that India was actively gunning for medals at the Olympics and took refuge in evasive replies. He spoke about the close misses in hockey, cited the performance of shooters Anjali Vedparthak and Abhlinav Bindra, the bronze medal won by Karnam Malleswari and the close fight put up by Gurcharan Singh in boxing. The classic bit of course was his comment on the lone competitor in the equestrian events, Imtiaz Anees, who finished 25th and last in the three-day event. "In the past we never used to even finish the event," the IOA chief pointed out.
Cricket Board President A.C. Muthiah is rightly upset over the adverse statement made on the working of the Board in the CBI report on the betting and match-fixing and has said that these comments were "absolutely unwarranted and lacked accuracy." The report blamed the Board for not taking action despite being in the know of things.
Muthiah has obviously taken exception to the additional observation made on the Boards working and the team selection process, both of which was outside the purview of the inquiry conducted by the CBI. The investigating body has certainly exceeded its brief and though fault could be found in some of the selections, it would be wrong to impute motives on the Selection committee which is quite independent of the Board. The working of the Board was in fact never meant to come under the scrutiny of the investigating authorities.
Muthiah has reasons to worry. The CBI comment on the Boards working has found echo in the ranks of the BJP, the main party in the coalition at the centre. There is the familiar cry of a demand for a government take-over or a government representation in the Board. Quite obviously these elements have linked the recent defeats of the Indian team to the Boards faulty functioning.
What is conveniently overlooked is that the Indian Cricket Board has always had a very big number of politicians on its executive and in the last decade have had two politicians (N.P.K. Salve and Maldhav Rao Scindia) and one influential bureaucrat (I.S. Bindra) as Presidents. Politicians and bureaucrats have in one form or the other have also been actively associated with the Board. And the working has not been affected one way or the other.
ends